100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
Summary International Relations Midterm Lectures (1-6) €4,49
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
  4.  
  5. International Relations

Samenvatting

Summary International Relations Midterm Lectures (1-6)

3 beoordelingen
 26 keer verkocht

This is an extensive summary of the first six lectures of the course International Relations (IR). This course is part of the political science bachelor program at the Univeristy of Amsterdam and is taught by Otto Holman. Good luck!

Voorbeeld 6 van de 49  pagina's

Document informatie

  • Ja
  • 7 april 2020
  • 49
  • 2019/2020
  • Samenvatting

Onderwerpen

Gekoppeld boek

book image

Titel boek:

Auteur(s):

  • Uitgave:
  • ISBN:
  • Druk:

Geschreven voor

Alle documenten voor dit vak (40)

3  beoordelingen

review-writer-avatar

Door: apariciodelalastra • 3 jaar geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: edenwudu • 4 jaar geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: ETruelsen • 4 jaar geleden

Verkoper

avatar-seller
scottishunicorn

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

Lecture 1: Clash of Civilizations

Huntington: the career
---University professor at Harvard
---Director John M. Ohlin Institute for Strategic Studies: ​The changing security environment
and American national interests ​(post Cold War)
---Example of the typical American ​organic intellectual​:
-Articles in ​Foreign Affairs
-National Security Council (Jimmy Carter Administration)
An organic intellectual is someone who is working in academia and is organically related to
existing power relations, also highly involved in actual politics, very closely related to the
establishment
---Publications:
-​Political order in changing societies ​(1968)
In the 60’s: modernisation theory very important in the U.S., which argues that
economic modernisation (aka capitalism) will automatically translate in political
democratisation. Huntington argues exactly the opposite: in order to have effective
political modernisation, you need political order/stability. This can be under
democratic rule, but can also be realised under authoritarian rule.
-​The Third Wave​ (1991)
Huntington compares processes of democratisation in Latin America, Southern
Europe and Central/Eastern Europe
-The Clash: article (1993) and book (1996)
-​Who Are We? ​(2004) (cultural Balkanisation)
arguing that the Americans should be warned of cultural Balkanisation
Balkanisation=the break up of multinational empires into different nation states, For
example: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Huntington argues that there will be a divide between Americans seen as white
anglosaxon protestants, and lation’s who form a threat for the American identity.

Huntington: the hypothesis
---Islam-expert Bernard Lewis (​The roots of Muslim Rage, 1990)
Lewis had previously written about the clash of civilisations.
---Reaction to Francis Fukuyama’s ​The End of History​ (1989+1992)
Fukuyama’s ideas are overoptimistic and dangerous according to Huntington
---Renewed interest since 11 September 2001
---Kishore Mahbubani: ​The New Asian Hemisphere (2008)
-’Different Mindsets’
- ...but common ‘March to Modernity’ (WTO)
Mahbubani argues that in the post Cold War period we have to accept that there are
different mindsets, different world views, very much related to different civilisations. We have
different traditions, cultures, identities. But there is one common thing: March to Modernity
(everyone needs a flushable toilet → WTO: World Toilet Organisation). We have to make a
distinction between modernisation and Westernisation.




1

,Basic elements Huntington-thesis
---Princes, Nations, Ideologies, Civilisations
We used to have the clash among princes (pre-modern period), absolute monarchs fighting
for territory. From 800 onwards we see that it changes to clash among peoples/nations, for
example: French versus the Germans. After 1917 (Russian Revolution) the clash between
nations is transformed in the clash between ideologies: capitalism versus communism.
---The end of the Cold War, some dangerous misconceptions:
-One World: Euphoria and Harmony
-184 states, more or less: sheer chaos?!
---Seven or eight civilisations:
Western, Japanese, Confucian/Chinese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic orthodox, Latin American and
African. According to Huntington, Africa doesn’t qualify as a civilisation because it is a mix of
other civilisations




---Fault lines between civilisations
Fault lines are geographical dividing lines between civilisations. Huntington argues that on
these fault lines we have potentially the greatest conflicts.
Example: Turkey is on one hand part of the Islamic civilisation but the Turkish elite is more
part of the Western civilisation.

What is a civilisation?
‘A civilisation is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural
identity people have short of what distinguishes humans from other species.’
A civilisation is a cultural entity. This can be at different levels: villages, regions, nations. You
can have multiple identities, but the largest identity one can have is a civilisation.
A civilisation is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural
identity people have.

Reasons Huntington
---Difference between civilisations
Civilizations are long standing, they are the product of centuries. There are differences
between them in history, language, tradition and they’re all fundamental. They point at
different mindsets, for example on the relationship between God and man, family relations,
men and women, they are all deeply embedded cultural differences among civilisations. And




2

,we should not deny these differences because we can’t do much about it because they are
the product of centuries.
---A smaller world results in an increase of civilisational consciousness
Clash of civilisations is reinforced by processes of globalisation. The world is getting smaller
and smaller. And as a result we see individuals belonging to different civilisations around the
corner, we meet them on a daily basis and we can experience the differences.
No one is criticising American investments in Europe, at the same time, we are very critical,
if not hostile, when it comes to Chinese investments. Hmmmmmm all of a sudden we like the
Americans and we dislike the Chinese. Huntington would argue this is basically because we
are from different civilisations.
---’La Revanche de Dieu’
Why is religion taking such a big role in this debate of civilisations?
More and more people live in cities, this is the process of urbanisation ( people move from
rural areas to urban areas) and in the process they lose all kinds of local identities.
Globalisation is making people insecure, and religion is filling the gap. This explains the
revival of religion according to Huntington.
Every year on Valentine’s Day we see radical Hindus in India attacking gift shops. This is
what Huntington would refer to as an example of how religious confrontations are very much
also anti-Western
---’Dual role of the West’
The West is on the one hand the symbol of modernity but at the same time the West is thé
enemy of non-Western people. Non-Western people no longer accept Western claims on
universal values and norms, they focus on their own national identity.
For example: Taliban forced men to have beards. Every beard had to be the length of a
Coca-Cola can.
That’s how dual the role of the West is. A symbol of religious identity, men wearing a beard,
is set by using one of the most important symbols of Western consumerism.
---Cultural differences are much more difficult to neutralise
When we had the ideological conflict between the capitalists and the communists, I could
ask you: On what side are you? And the answer to this question could change. Same goes
for the party you vote for. Ideologies or political opinions are like sweater, you can change
them. According to Huntington, civilisations are like skins: they are unchangeable.

Recommendations Huntington
---Global politics is multipolar and ‘multi-civilisational’ (for first time in history)
---Shift in balance of power among civilisations:
-Asiatic civilisations gain strength
-Demographic explosion in the Islamic world
---The emergence of a ‘civilisation-based world order’
---The Western illusion of universalism
Huntington is not arguing for the superiority of the Western civilisation. We should get rid of
the Western illusion of universalism.
---How to prevent a ‘Global War of Civilisations’?
By peaceful coexistence of these civilisations on the one hand on the way to this common
road to modernity, but on the other hand by not only accepting each other’s civilisations but
also by trying to answer the question ‘who are we?’ and in the process try to find the



3

,essential elements of our civilisational identity because only in the situation of strength we
can reach peaceful coexistence among civilisations.

Huntington and his critics
---State is the most important actor
Civilisations do not have armies, we should go back to the real world of states
---The power of economic and socio-political modernisation (versus Huntington’s
civilisation-determinism)
argument: Huntington overestimates civilisational/cultural identities and he underestimates
the power of economic and socio-political modernisation. Through this common road to
modernity we will see that all the nations in the world who have successfully followed this
road will have social-political modernisation too. We can already see this in the elited and
middle-classes of the developing world. For example: Saudi Arabia first country to be visited
by Trump.
---Role of elites and middle classes
---Identities are socially constructed
Difference between primordial and imaginative communities. A primordial community is a
small community where you know every individual member, for example: a small village.
Everything else, where you do not know the individual members, is an imagined community.
For example: supporters of Ajax feeling like part of a community of Ajax supporters even
though you don’t know them. Imagined communities can be socially constructed but can also
be socially deconstructed. Same goes for civilisations: we believe in the biggest identity ever
but this is just a matter of construction.
---Civilisational division of the world incorrect
---Superiority/supremacy Western civilisation?
---Thought provoking idea but empirically unsound!
There is a slight increase in civilisational conflict after the Cold War, nut there is also an
increase in non-civilisational conflict. So we cannot argue that there is strong evidence that
after ‘89 more civilisational conflicts have taken place. After 2001, we have the start of the
War on Terror, the revamping of this clash of civilisations idea.




4

,Lecture 2: IR as an academic discipline / Theories of IR
Part I




this cartoon was made right after the 2014 Eurovision Songcontest, won by an Austrian
transgender (left). On the right you see Vladimir Putin. He’s standing on planet Mars and
Europe is sitting on the planet Venus. Mars is the god of War; Venus is the goddess of love.
So here we have the juxtaposition of two different world views/mindsets.
This is also a reference to foreign policy specialist Robert Kagan who once stated:
‘Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus’, meaning that there’s a clear division of
labour between the two: U.S. takes care of hard power, EU soft power.

Power in IR, international power
---Who Governs (Robert Dahl)? Nobody!
In terms of domestic politics there’s formally a clear answer to this question: Who governs?
→ the government.
When we apply the same question to International Relations, the straightforward and direct
answer is: NOBODY: there’s no single authority or world government available or possible.
In J/S/M (box 2.6) there is a discussion between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud.
Einstein is the optimistic guy who thinks that a world federalism or a federal structure at a
global level is possible, whereas Freud doubts that humans have the capacity to overcome
their irrational attachments to national and religious groups.It will never be possible to create
a world government or a world federation where all the people in the world are working
together, simply because everyone is after his/her own interest.
---Essential characteristic of international relations: anarchy
How can we realise or guarantee stability and security in a world ruled by anarchy? How can
we avoid conflict and war. A possible answer is: globalisation.
---Globalisation: stateless market!
We live in a world where there are no borders for capital. Some refer to this as the empire of
capital. Instead of the usual combination between state formation and market integration,
what we see today is market integration worldwide without a concomitant process of state
formation. Then the question is: can we in a world of anarchy rely on complex
interdependence? Is global economic interdependence enough reason to expect that people
want to negotiate, trade,invest, instead of go to war? How can we reorganise the jungle into
a zoo?
---Power and sovereignty




5

, For a number of reasons globalisation can’t do the governing. That is related to the very fact
that the international state system is about power and sovereignty. Why is it that states need
power? Why is it that states need sovereignty?
1. Because they want to keep their ​territorial integrity
2. They want to maintain ​national self-determination
3. And they want to ​protect their own population and territory​ against (immanent, real
or constructed) extern threats.

Are trade wars the new wars making real wars (military wars) obsolete? No! unfortunately
not, we are living in a world where there are many states but not all states are equal. We are
talking about economic inequality, military inequality, difference between highly developed
countries, democratic countries, we have developing states with authoritarian rule and we
have failed states. States have to keep their material, military capabilities in place in order to
anticipate attacks. A second reason is that some states may rise to the occasion, while other
states are decreasing their powers. So there is a rise and demise of states in the
international system. We call this the power transition theory: states that used to have power
are losing their power and other states are gaining. Example: current power transition from
the US to China. The argument in this theory is that in the history of these transitions we
always see an important warfare occuring, especially the power that is losing in this power
transition is more often than not the cause.

Definition security-dilemma
If you want to protect your country, your territory, your people, your wealth from others than
one object is to increase your military capabilities.
But what happens if one country is standing more on defence? Then a very VERY very
important concept in the discipline of international relations is the security-dilemma.

Security dilemma:
‘A structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security
needs...tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets
its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening.’ -Gurr

Trump is telling us (Western Europe) to increase our defense spending to the extent that we
spend at least 2% of our national welfare on a yearly base on defense. We as the world
community also agreed that we would spend a minimum on development assistance, 2% on
defence and 0.7% on development assistance. According to the most recent statistics SIPRI
(Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), Russia has decreased its military
spending in the last two years. We (West) are going to increase our defense spending. This
is exactly what the security dilemma is all about. What would you think if someone who was
always your enemy becomes your next door neighbour. What would you think that old
enemy is not only approaching your borders (through the enlargement of NATO to Central
Eastern- Europe), but is also increasing defense spending. Would you see this as a normal
act of defence? Or a deed of aggression?
According to the security-dilemma it is seen as an act of aggression.




6

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper scottishunicorn. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67418 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis
€4,49  26x  verkocht
  • (3)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd